Vijender Singh Malik, J. - (1.) BY filing a petition under section 12(i)(c) of the Hindu Marriage Act, 1955 (for short 'the Act'), Balwinder, petitioner, the husband has obtained a decree of annulment of his marriage with Kuldeep Kaur, respondent. The said decree is passed ex -parte against the respondent on 05.09.2008. . The wife filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the said decree and vide order dated 21.10.2011, learned Additional District Judge, Chandigarh has accepted the said application and has set aside the ex -parte judgment and decree dated 05.09.2008. It is this order, which is challenged by the petitioner by way of this revision petition brought under the provisions of Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India.
(2.) THE marriage between the parties was solemnized on 10.12.2006. Claiming that the girl shown to him before the marriage was different from the girl with whom his marriage was solemnized, Balwinder has sought a decree of annulment of marriage. In her application for setting aside the ex -parte judgment and decree dated 05.09.2008, the respondent had claimed that Balwinder had played with the process of the court and had succeeded in obtaining the ex -parte decree on 05.09.2008. According to her, the petition was filed on 02.05.2007 and the case was taken up on 27.10.2007. It was found from the report of the process server made on the notice issued to the respondent that she was not residing at the given address. Fresh correct address of the respondent alongwith registered covers were sought to be filed by the petitioner and thereafter notice was ordered to be issued to the respondent for 13.12.2007. Neither the correct address nor the registered covers were filed. Again correct address and registered covers were sought from him for 13.02.2008. On 13.02.2008, the court came to the conclusion that the respondent was avoiding service of summons and she was ordered to be served by way of substituted service in 'Desh Sewak' a newspaper for 09.05.2008. After the said publication, the case was ordered to proceed ex -parte against the respondent and those proceedings ended in the ex -parte judgment and decree.
(3.) THE wife has claimed that she was shown to be a resident of H. No. 2950 -51 Dadu Majra Colony, Sector 38, Chandigarh. This is the address of the petitioner as per the memorandum of parties. According to her, on three dates, the process server made report that the said premises was found lying locked. Nothing was there to prove that the respondent was avoiding the services of summons. Summons were never tendered for her service. She has claimed that she was not subscribing to the newspaper 'Desh Sewak' and that she never came to know about such newspaper. The said newspaper is said to have no circulation at Pehowa where she has been residing.;